I realize it doesn’t settle the issue for everyone, but it’s worth reading. It was quite a remarkable achievement, I think, and I find it odd that it’s almost never mentioned in these kinds of discussions.

I’m not claiming that Trent doesn’t mean what it says. I’m saying that Trent made use of an underlying theological and philosophical framework, that isn’t spelled out in the document. I can remember reading some of the canons of Trent, before studying Aquinas. And when I compare my impression then with my experience reading them after a number of years studying Aquinas, it is like night and day. I didn’t understand the theological rationale for them before, apart from the theological anthropology and soteriology laid out in Aquinas, both in his Summa and in his commentaries on the letters of St. Paul.

I understand the desire to keep everything simple. But there is a danger of over-simplifying. If simplicity were a necessary condition for orthodox theology, we’d have to abandon the Athanasian Creed and the Council of Chalcedon. Peter even tells us that some of what Paul writes is “hard to understand”, and that the “untaught” “distort” it. Even in the verse you quote, there are at least four questions that must be answered. Is this justification merely forensic or is it a rectification of the sinner’s will through inhering grace? Is this initial justification or growth in justification? Is this faith without charity, or faith with charity? And by ‘works’ does he mean all works or is he referring to the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic Law, or works under the Mosaic Covenant? The danger in always picking the simplest reading is that sometimes the truth is more complicated than we realize.

As for the claim that the Catholic Church refused to let the Lutherans vote at Trent, almost all of the Lutherans were not bishops, and therefore would not have been able to vote at Trent anyway. There were a few bishops at Trent who were sympathetic to some of Luther’s claims (e.g. Seripando, Pole). The Church didn’t ’stack the deck’; all the bishops were invited to attend. If an ecumenical council has authority, then its authority cannot be based on whether we agree with its decisions. Otherwise, there is no point to ecumenical councils. That’s why I have argued that either the teachings of all the ecumenical councils are authoritative, or the teachings of none of them are authoritative. We can’t just pick and choose which ecumenical councils we agree with and which we reject, or take a red pen to the sentences with which we disagree within a particular ecumenical council, and then say that the ecumenical councils are authoritative. The well known line is apt here: When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

Ding ding!

If Trent doesn’t mean what it says, and you need to understand Aquinas to decode Trent, then the church should erase it and start over. I’ve studied Aquinas for years from the best teachers and it is impossible to understand without also studying Aristotle in depth. To understand Aristotle, you need to study Plato.

I could go on. But instead of taking Bryan Cross’s word for it, I’ll take the Catholic church at it’s word. Even if Cross’s interpretation of Trent & Aquinas is correct, which isn’t certain, it’s teaching on justification is unnecessarily complicated compared to the beautiful assurance of “we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works!”

As far as Josh’s blogging as a neophyte Lutheran, Josh had an advantage. Lutheran theology is neatly and completely set out in the Book of Concord. It doesn’t take years of philosophical training to get.

@MuleChewingBriars.

Brilliant. I hope we’re not going back there. Good Lord.

I stand corrected. If you’re talking to people in small groups who are addressing these questions, then you’re further down the road than I thought. I was skeptical that such a niche existed, but obviously it does and you’ve found it. I doubt very much that I could add anything to your blog, but I will pray for your efforts.

-Ben

I’m not unaware that most Christians (Protestant and Catholic) don’t think much about why they are one and not the other. I’m trying to provide helpful answers to those that do. I’m also trying to provoke thought about the following two questions: Why exactly are we divided? And how do we go about reconciling? We are living in a time, in my opinion, when those questions should be in the forefront of our minds, questions that Protestants and Catholics should be discussing on a continual basis. A small group of Protestants and Catholics has been getting together here in St. Louis, since last year, to try to work out our differences, and figure out how to be reunited. These face-to-face discussions are better, in my opinion, than the blog/internet format, because it is so much more personal. I would hope that such an activity would be taking place in cities all over the country.

Anyway, if you think I’m doing it wrong, and you would like to contribute guest posts at Principium Unitatis, please send me a note. I’d be glad for the help. I mean that.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

If the aim of your blog is to explain the theology underlying the historical split between Catholics and Protestants, fine. If your aim is to actually bring Protestants into the Catholic Church, however, I think you’re probably on the wrong track. It’s not your theology I disagree with, it’s your psychology.

It’s obvious that you think a lot about why you are a Catholic. That’s natural given your life experience and philosophical bent. I don’t think that average Protestant “genuinely wants to understand why he is a Protestant rather than a Catholic,” because I doubt he thinks about his religious identity in those terms. (Not knocking Protestants; I would say the same about Catholics.)

If I were a British person trying to encourage immigration from America, I would not go about telling Americans that they don’t have the historical competency to comprehend the real reasons for the American Revolution and that they need to examine why they are American instead of British.

You do a good job of explaining your point of view, but you’re coming at it from where you’re at right now. When you’re trying to be persuasive, however, you have to understand where the other person is at right now.

I think that the kind of people who blog and engage in apologetics are far more intellectually-inclined than the average Christian. I could be wrong, though.

-Ben